Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Owen Genat wrote
No. The information provided by Italo up-thread is correct:
italovignoli wrote
... ODF 1.2 which is in the process of becoming an ISO standard (backward
compatible with ODF 1.0). Standard definitions, by their own nature, are
moving slowly.

Interesting. This means that ODF 1.2 is an OASIS approved standard since
2011 but isn't yet an ISO standard... So, I apologize to OASIS :) It's the
ISO standard that takes ages...

This just proves my point (going back to the comment by nabbler) that it if
the bureaucracy takes so long, you can't really blame MS (or any other
vendor) for not being 100% compatible. 

In fact it is impossible that any other office suite produces 100%
compatible ODF documents since by definition LO is one of the products
defining the ODF characteristics...

Absurdly Microsoft (as an OASIS member) could also legitimately be producing
another ODF 1.2 extended file format (valid under OASIS) but completely
different from the one in LO...

So, the question "if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of LO "
doesn't make sense ;)

View this message in context:
Sent from the Users mailing list archive at

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.